http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
Five Models of Staff Development
By Dennis Sparks and Susan Loucks-Horsley
Journal of Staff Development, Fall 1989 (Vol. 10, No. 4)
Copyright, National Staff Development Council, 1989. All rights reserved.
In the early 1970s, a growing concern about the effectiveness of inservice education
resulted in a spate of studies to determine the attitudes of educators about these
programs (Ainsworth. 1976; Brim & Tollett, 1974; Joyce & Peck, 1977; Zigarmi,
Betz, & Jensen, 1977). The findings indicated nearly unanimous dissatisfaction with
current efforts, but a strong consensus that inservice was critical if school programs
and practices were to be improved (Wood & Kleine, 1987).
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, several major studies and reviews contributed
to our understanding of the characteristics of effective staff development, focusing not
on attitudes, but on actual practices (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978; Kells, 1980;
Lawrence, 1974; Yarger, Howey, & Joyce, 1980). The resulting list of effective
practices, well known by now, included:
• Programs conducted in school settings and linked to ‘schoolwide
efforts;
• Teachers participating as helpers to each other and as planners, with
administrators, of inservice activitie;
• Emphasis on self instruction, with differentiated training
opportunities;
• Teachers in active roles, choosing goals and activities for themselves;
• Emphasis on demonstration, supervised trials, and feedback; training
that is concrete and ongoing over time; and
• Ongoing assistance and support available on request
Staff development came of age in the 1980s. It was the focus of countless
conferences, workshops, articles, books, and research reports. State legislators and
administrators of local school districts saw staff development as a key aspect of
school improvement efforts. Many school districts initiated extensive staff
development projects to improve student learning. Research on these projects and
craft knowledge generated by staff developers have substantially advanced our
understanding of effective staff development practices beyond the overview studies of
the early 1980s referred to above.
Introduction
1
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
In spite of this recent intense, widespread interest in staff development, much remains
to be learned about the process. This article organizes what is known about effective
staff development into five models currently being espoused and used by staff
developers. A review of the supporting theory and research on these models is
followed by a description of what is currently known about the organizational context
that is required to support successful staff development efforts. The conclusion
discusses what can be said with confidence about effective staff development practice
and what remains to be learned. First, however are definitions of the key terms and a
description of the literature that is used throughout the article.
Definitions
Staff development is defined as those processes that improve the job-related
knowledge, skills, or attitudes of school employees. While participants in staff
development activities may include school board members, central office
administrators, principals, and non-certified staff, this article focuses on staff
development for teachers. In particular, it examines what is known about staff
development that is intended to improve student learning through enhanced teacher
performance.
Two uses of the word "model" have been combined in an effort to both conceptualize
staff development and make this conceptualization useful to staff developers. First,
borrowing from Ingvarson’s (1987) use of the term, a model can be seen as a design
for learning which embodies a set of assumptions about (a) where knowledge about
teaching practice comes from, and (b) how teachers acquire or extend their
knowledge. Models chosen for discussion differ in their assumptions. Second,
adapting Joyce and Well’s (1972) definition of a model of teaching, a staff
development model is a pattern or plan which can be used to guide the design of a
staff development program.
Each staff development model presented below is discussed in terms of its theoretical
and research underpinnings, its critical attributes (including its underlying
assumptions and phases of activities), and illustrations of its impact on teacher growth
and development. The literature supporting these models is of several types. First, for
each model, the theoretical and research bases that support its use in improving
teacher knowledge, skills, or attitudes are considered. The question asked was: Why
should one believe that this model should affect teachers’ classroom behavior?
Second, program descriptions were reviewed in which these models were applied.
The question asked was: What evidence exists that demonstrates that this model can
be implemented by staff developers in schools and school districts? Third, data about
outcomes was sought. The question asked was: What evidence indicates that this
model actually makes a difference in teacher performance?
An Overview
This article presents five models of staff development: (a) individually-guided staff
development, (b) observation/assessment, (c) involvement in a
development/improvement process, (d) training, and (e) inquiry.
2
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
Individually-guided staff development refers to a process through which teachers plan
for and pursue activities they believe will promote their own learning. The
observation/assessment model provides teachers with objective data and feedback
regarding their classroom performance. This process may in itself produce growth or
it can provide information that may be used to select areas for growth.
Involvement in a development/improvement process engages teachers in developing
curriculum, designing programs, or engaging in a school improvement process to
solve general or particular problems. The inquiry model requires that teachers identify
an area of instructional interest, collect data, and make changes in their instruction
based on an interpretation of those data. The training model (which may be
synonymous with staff development in the minds of many educators) involves
teachers in acquiring knowledge or skills through appropriate individual of group
instruction.
Next, this article examines the organizational context that is required to support these
models. Our discussion includes organizational climate, leadership and support,
district policies and systems, and participant involvement.
The final section looks for gaps in the knowledge base of staff development,
identifying areas about which there is still more to learn and areas that as yet remain
unexplored by researchers. The hope is that this article and the chapter from which it
is adapted will serve as both a signpost for how far we have come in the past 20 years
in our understanding of effective staff development practices and a spring-board for
future research in this vital area.
Five Models of Staff Development
1. Individually-Guided Staff Development
Teachers learn many things on their own. They read professional publications, have
discussions with colleagues, and experiment with new instructional strategies, among
other activities. All of these may occur with or without the existence of a formal staff
development program.
It is possible, however, for staff development programs to actively promote
individually-guided activities. While the actual activities may vary widely, the key
characteristic of the individually-guided staff development model is that the learning
is designed by the teacher. The teacher determines his or her own goals and selects the
activities that will result in the achievement of those goals. Perhaps a sense of this
model is best represented in an advertisement for the Great Books Foundation which
reads: "At 30, 50, or 70, you are more self-educable than you were at 20. It’s time to
join a Great Books reading and discussion group."
Underlying assumptions.
This model assumes that individuals can best judge their own learning needs and that
they are capable of self direction and self-initiated learning. It also assumes that adults
learn most efficiently when they initiate and plan their learning activities rather than
spending their time in activities that are less relevant than those they would design. (It
3
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
is, however, true that when individual teachers design their own learning there is
much "reinventing of the wheel," which may seem inefficient to some observers.) The
model also holds that individuals will be most motivated when they select their own
learning goals based on their personal assessment of their needs.
Theoretical and research underpinnings.
According to Lawrence’s (1974) review of 97 studies of inservice programs,
programs with individualized activities were more likely to achieve their objectives
than were those that provided identical experiences for all participants. Theory
supporting the individually- guided model can be found in the work of a number of
individuals. Rogers’ (1969) client-centered therapy and views on education are based
on the premise that human beings will seek growth given the appropriate conditions.
"I have come to feel," Rogers wrote, "that the only learning which significantly
influences behavior is self-discovered, self-appropriated learning" (p. 153).
The differences in people and their needs are well represented in the literature on
adult learning theory, adult development, learning styles, and the change process.
Adult learning theorists (Kidd, 1973; Knowles, 1980) believe that adults become
increasingly self-directed and that their readiness to learn is stimulated by real life
tasks and problems. Stage theorists (Levine, 1989) hold that individuals in different
stages of development have different personal and professional needs. Consequently,
staff development that provides practical classroom management assistance to a 22year-old beginning teacher may be inappropriate for a teaching veteran who is
approaching retirement.
Learning styles researchers (Dunn & Dunn, 1978; Gregorc, 1979) argue that
individuals are different in the ways they perceive and process information and in the
manner in which they most effectively learn (e.g., alone or with others, by doing as
opposed to hearing about). Research on the Concerns-Based Adoption Model
(CBAM) (Hall & Loucks, 1978) indicates that as individuals learn new behaviors and
change their practice, they experience different types of concerns that require different
types of responses from staff developers. For instance, when first learning about a
new instructional technique, some teachers with personal concerns require
reassurance that they will not be immediately evaluated on the use of the strategy,
while a teacher with management concerns wants to know how this technique can be
used in the classroom.
Taken together, these theorists and researchers recognize that the circumstances most
suitable for one person’s professional development may be quite different from those
that promote another individual’s growth. Consequently, individually-guided staff
development allows teachers to find answers to self-selected professional problems
using their preferred modes of learning.
Phases of activity
Individually-guided staff development consists of several phases: (a) the identification
of a need or interest, (b) the development of a plan to meet the need or interest, (c) the
learning activity(ies), and (d) assessment of whether the learning meets the identified
need or interest. These phases might be undertaken informally and almost
4
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
unconsciously, or they may be part of a formal, structured process. Each phase is
explained in greater detail below.
With the identification of a need or interest, the teacher considers what he or she
needs to learn. This assessment may be done formally (e.g., the completion of a needs
assessment process of as a result of evaluation by a supervisor) or occur more
spontaneously (e.g., a conversation with a colleague or reflection upon an
instructional problem). The need or interest may be remedial (e.g., "I’ve really come
to dislike my work because of the classroom management problems I’m having") or
growth-oriented (e.g., "I’m intrigued by recent research on the brain and want to
better understand its implications for student learning").
Having identified the need or interest, the teacher selects a learning objective and
chooses activities that will lead to accomplishing this objective. Activities may
include workshop attendance, reading, visits to another classroom or school, or
initiation of a seminar or similar learning program.
The learning activity may be single session (e.g., attendance at a workshop on new
approaches to reading in the content areas) or occur over time (e.g., examination of
the research on retaining students in grade). Based on the individual’s preferred mode
of learning, it may be done alone (e.g., reading or writing), with others (e.g., a
seminar that considers ways of boosting the self-esteem of high school students), or as
a combination of these activities.
When assessing formal individually-guided processes the teacher may be asked to
make a brief written report to the funding source or an oral report to colleagues. In
other instances the teacher may simply be aware that he or she now better understands
something. It is not uncommon that as a result of this assessment phase the teacher
may realize how much more there is to be learned on the topic or be led to a newly
emerging need or interest.
Illustrations and outcomes.
Individually-guided staff development may take many forms. It may be as simple as a
teacher reading a journal article on a topic of interest. Other forms of individuallyguided staff development are more complex. For instance, teachers may design and
carry out special professional projects supported by incentive grants such as a
competitive "teacher excellence fund" promoted by Boyer(1983) or "mini-grants"
described by Mosher (1981). Their projects may involve research, curriculum
development, or other learning activities. While evidence of outcomes for such
programs is not substantial, there are indications that they can empower teachers to
address their own problems, create a sense of professionalism, and provide
intellectual stimulation (Loucks-Horsley, Harding, Arbuckle, Dubea, Murray, &
Williams, 1987). This strategy proved effective in New York City and Houston,
where teachers were supported to develop and disseminate their own exemplary
programs through Impact II grants. They reported changes in their classroom
practices, as well as increases in student attendance, discipline, and motivation
(Mann, 1984-85).
5
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
Teacher evaluation and supervision can be a source of data for individually guided
staff development. McGreal (1983) advocates that goal setting be the principal
activity of teacher evaluation. Supervisors would assist in the establishment of those
goals based on the motivation and ability of the teacher. The type of goals, the
activities teachers engage in to meet the goals, and the amount of assistance provided
by supervisors would differ from teacher to teacher based upon developmental level,
interests, concerns, and instructional problems.
Similarly, Glatthorn’s (1984) "differentiated supervision" calls for "self-directed
development" as one form of assistance to teachers. Self-directed development is a
goal-based approach to professional improvement in which teachers have access to a
variety of resources for meeting their collaboratively identified needs.
Research on teacher centers also demonstrates the value of individually guided staff
development. Hering and Howey (1982) summarized research conducted on 15
teacher centers sponsored by the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and
Development from 1978 to 1982. They concluded that, "the most important
contribution of teachers’ centers is their emphasis on working with individual teachers
over time" (p. 2). Such a focus on individual teachers is absent from many traditional
staff development programs, which teacher centers appear to complement quite
effectively.
Hering and Howey (1982) reported that mini-grants of up to $750 provided by the St.
Louis Metropolitan Teacher Center were used to fund a variety of classroom-oriented
projects. Interviews with participants found that teachers made extensive use of the
ideas and products they developed. Some of these projects eventually affected not
only an individual classroom, but a school or the entire district. Regarding this
project, Hering and Howey concluded:
As would be expected, teachers who were given money and support
reported high levels of satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment.
Also not surprisingly, they developed projects anchored in the realities
of the classroom and responsive to the needs and interests of their
students. Perhaps most important, however, is the strong suggestion
that they can, indeed, influence change and innovation in other
classrooms, as well as their own, through projects they design at
minimal costs. (p. 6)
Hering and Howey (1982) also report the findings for a study done on individualized
services provided at the Northwest Staff Development Center in Livonia, Michigan.
Even though these awards rarely exceeded $50, 78 percent of the recipients reported
that they had considerable control over their own learning and professional
development. Almost 85 percent of the recipients thought that these services made a
substantive difference in their classrooms. In summarizing the value of individualized
services, the researchers wrote, "Individual teacher needs and concerns have to be
attended to, as well as schoolwide collective ones, or enthusiasm for the collective
approach will quickly wane" (p. 6)
While there are many illustrations of an individualized approach to staff development
in the literature and many more in practice, research on its impact on teaching is
6
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
largely perceptual and self-report. Perhaps as more resources are directed to
supporting this strategy–particularly in the form of incentive grants to teachers–more
will be learned about its contribution to teacher, as well as student, growth.
The circumstances most suitable for one person’s professional development may be
quite different from those that promote another individual’s growth. Consequently,
individually-guided staff development allows teachers to find answers to self-selected
professional problems using their preferred modes of learning.
2. Observation/Assessment
"Feedback is the breakfast of champions" is the theme of Blanchard and Johnson’s
(1982) popular management book, The One Minute Manager. Yet many teachers
receive little or no feedback on their classroom performance. In fact, in some school
districts teachers may be observed by a supervisor as little as once every 3 years, and
that observation/feedback cycle may be perfunctory in nature.
While observation/assessment can be a powerful staff development model, in the
minds of many teachers it is associated with evaluation. Because this process often
has not been perceived as helpful (Wise & Darling-Hammond, 1985), teachers
frequently have difficulty understanding the value of this staff development model.
However, once they have had an opportunity to learn about the many forms this
model can take (for instance, peer coaching and clinical supervision, as well as
teacher evaluation), it may become more widely practiced.
Underlying assumptions.
One assumption underlying this model, according to Loucks-Horsley and her
associates (1987), is that "Reflection and analysis are central means of professional
growth" (p. 61). Observation and assessment of instruction provide the teacher with
data that can be reflected upon and analyzed for the purpose of improving student
learning.
A second assumption is that reflection by an individual on his or her own practice can
be enhanced by another’s observations. Since teaching is an isolated profession,
typically taking place in the presence of no other adults, teachers are not able to
benefit from the observations of others. Having "another set of eyes" gives a teacher a
different view of how he or she is performing with students.
Another assumption is that observation and assessment of classroom teaching can
benefit both involved parties – the teacher being observed and the observer. The
teacher benefits by another’s view of his or her behavior and by receiving helpful
feedback from a colleague. The observer benefits by watching a colleague, preparing
the feedback, and discussing the common experience.
A final assumption is that when teachers see positive results from their efforts to
change, they are more apt to continue to engage in improvement. Because this model
may involve multiple observations and conferences spread over time, it can help
teachers see that change is possible. As they apply new strategies, they can see
7
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
changes both in their own and their students’ behavior. In some instances, measurable
improvements in student learning will also be observed.
Theoretical and research underpinnings.
Theoretical and research support for the observation/assessment model can be found
in the literature on teacher evaluation, clinical supervision, and peer coaching. Each of
these approaches is based on the premise that teaching can be objectively observed
and analyzed and that improvement can result from feedback on that performance.
McGreal’s (1982) work on teacher evaluation suggests a key role for classroom
observation, but expresses a major concern about reliability of observations. The
author points to two primary ways to increase the reliability of classroom
observations. The first is to narrow the range of what is looked for by having a system
that takes a narrowed focus on teaching (for instance, an observation system based on
the Madeline Hunter approach to instruction), or by using an observation guide or
focusing instrument. The second way is to use a pre-conference to increase the kind
and amount of information the observer has prior to the observation. Glatthorn(1984)
recommends that clinical supervisors (or coaches) alternate unfocused observations
with focused observations. In unfocused observation the observer usually takes
verbatim notes on all significant behavior. These data are used to identify some
strengths and potential problems that are discussed in a problem-solving feedback
conference. A focus is then determined for the next observation during which the
observer gathers data related to the identified problem.
Glickman (1986) suggests that the type of feedback provided teachers should be based
on their cognitive levels. Teachers with a "low abstract" cognitive style should receive
directive conferences (problem identification and solution come primarily form the
coach or supervisor) "moderate-abstract’’ teachers should receive collaborative
conferences (an exchange of perceptions about problems and a negotiated solution);
and "high- abstract" teachers should receive a nondirective approach (the coach or
supervisor helps the teacher clarify problems and choose a course of action).
Peer coaching is a form of the observation/assessment model that pro- motes transfer
of learning to the classroom (Joyce & Showers, 1982). In peer observation, teachers
visit one another’s classrooms, gather objective data about student performance or
teacher behavior, and give feedback in a follow-up conference. According to Joyce
and Showers (1983):
Relatively few persons, having mastered a new teaching skill, will then
transfer that skill into their active repertoire. In fact, few will use it at
all. Continuous practice, feedback, and the companionship of coaches
is essential to enable even highly motivated persons to bring additions
to their repertoire under effective control. (p. 4)
Joyce (Brandt, 1987) says that up to 30 trials may be required to bring a new teaching
strategy under "executive control." Similarly, Shalaway (1985) found that 10 to 15
coaching sessions may be necessary for teachers to use what they have learned in their
classrooms.
8
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
Phases of activity.
The observation/assessment model–whether implemented through evaluation, clinical
supervision, or peer coaching–usually includes a pre-observation conference,
observation, analysis of data, post-observation conference, and (in some instances) an
analysis of the observation/assessment process (Loucks-Horsley et al.,1987). in the
pre-observation conference, a focus for the observation is determined, observation
methods selected, and any special problems noted.
During the observation, data are collected using the processes agreed upon in the preobservation conference. The observation may be focused on the students or on the
teacher, and can be global in nature or narrowly focused. Patterns found during
instruction may become evident. Hunter (1982) recommends three points of analysis:
(a) behaviors that contribute to learning, (b) behaviors that interfere with learning, and
(c) behaviors that neither contribute nor interfere, but use time and energy that could
be better spent.
In the post-observation conference both the teacher and observer reflect on the lesson
and the observer shares the data collected. Strengths are typically acknowledged and
areas for improvement suggested (by either the teacher or observer, depending upon
the goals established in the pre-observation conference). An analysis of the
supervisory (or coaching) process itself, while not necessarily a part of all forms of
this model, provides participants with an opportunity to reflect on the value of the
observation/assessment process and to discuss modifications that might be made in
future cycles.
Illustrations and outcomes.
Acheson and Gall (1980) report a number of studies in which the clinical supervision
model has been accepted by teachers when they and their supervisors are taught
systematic observation techniques. They further note that this process is viewed as
productive by teachers when the supervisor uses "indirect" behaviors (e.g., accepting
feelings and ideas, giving praise and encouragement, asking questions). While the
authors report that trained supervisors helped teachers make improvements in a
number of instructional behaviors, they were unable to find any studies that
demonstrated student effects.
The most intensive and extensive studies of the impact of observational/assessment on
learning comes from the work of Showers and Joyce. Discussed in more detail in the
training section, these authors and their associates have found that powerful
improvements have been made to student learning when the training of teachers in
effective instructional practices is followed by observations and coaching in their
classrooms (Joyce & Showers, 1988).
The research, then, provides reason to believe that teacher behaviors can be positively
influenced by the use of an observation/assessment model of staff development.
In a study that contrasted different sources of coaching, Sparks (1986) contrasted a
workshop-only approach with peer coaching and with consultant coaching. Her
9
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
findings indicated that peer coaching was most powerful in improving classroom
performance.
The research, then, provides reason to believe that teacher behaviors can be positively
influenced by the use of an observation/assessment model of staff development. It still
remains to be learned, however, whether this model must be combined with particular
kinds of training if student learning is to be enhanced.
3. Involvement in a Development/Improvement Process
Teachers are sometimes asked to develop or adapt curriculum, design programs, or
engage in systematic school improvement processes that have as their goal the
improvement of classroom instruction and/or curriculum. Typically these projects are
initiated to solve a problem. Their successful completion may require that teachers
acquire specific knowledge or skills (e.g., curriculum planning, research on effective
teaching, group problem-solving strategies). This learning could be acquired through
reading, discussion, observation, training, and/or trial and error. In other instances, the
process of developing a product itself may cause significant learnings (e.g., through
experiential learning), some of which may have been difficult or impossible to predict
in advance. This model focuses on the combination of learnings that result from the
involvement of teachers in such development/improvement processes.
Underlying assumptions.
One assumption on which this model is based is that adults learn most effectively
when they have a need to know or a problem to solve (Knowles, 1980). Serving on a
school improvement committee may require that teachers read the research on
effective teaching and that they learn new group and interpersonal skills. Curriculum
development may demand new content knowledge of teachers. In each instance,
teachers’ learning is driven by the demands of problem solving.
Another assumption of this model is that people working closest to the job best
understand what is required to improve their performance. Their teaching experiences
guide teachers as they frame problems and develop solutions. Given appropriate
opportunities, teachers can effectively bring their unique perspectives to the tasks of
improving teaching and their schools.
A final assumption is that teachers acquire important knowledge or skills through
their involvement in school improvement or curriculum development processes. Such
involvement may cause alterations in attitudes or the acquisition of skills as
individuals or groups work toward the solution of a common problem. For instance,
teachers may become more aware of the perspectives of others, more appreciative of
individual differences, more skilled in group leadership, and better able to solve
problems. While the learnings may be unpredictable in advance, they are often
regarded as important by teachers.
Teachers acquire important knowledge or skills through their involvement in school
improvement or curriculum development processes, Such involvement may cause
alterations in attitudes or the acquisition of skills as individuals or groups work
toward the solution of a common problem.
10
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
Theoretical and research underpinnings.
We have chosen to represent curriculum development and school improvement as
types of staff development; involvement in these processes nurtures teachers’ growth.
Others see staff development (perhaps viewed more narrowly as training) as a key
component of effective curriculum development and implementation. As Joyce and
Showers (1988) write, "It has been well established that curriculum implementation is
demanding of staff development – essentially, without strong staff development
programs that are appropriately designed a very low level of implementation occurs"
(p. 44).
Whichever perspective one has, staff development and the improvement of schools
and curriculum go hand in hand. Glickman (1986), who argues that the aim of staff
development should be to improve teachers’ ability to think, views curriculum
development as a key aspect of this process. He believes that the intellectual
engagement required in curriculum development demands that teachers not only know
their content, but that they must also acquire curriculum planning skills. He
recommends that curriculum development be conducted in heterogeneous groups
composed of teachers of low, medium, and high abstract reasoning abilities. Accordaccording to Glickman, the complexity of the curriculum development task should be
matched to the abstract reasoning ability of the majority of teachers in the group.
Glatthorn (1987) describes three ways in which teachers can modify a district’s
curriculum guide. They may operationalize the district’s curriculum guide by taking
its lists of objectives and recommended teaching methods and turning them into a set
of usable instructional guides. Or they may adapt the guide to students’ special needs
(e.g., remediation, learning style differences, etc.). Finally, teachers may enhance the
guide by developing optional enrichment units. Glatthorn recommends that these
activities be done in groups, believing that, in doing so, teachers will become more
cohesive and will share ideas about teaching and learning in general, as well as on the
development task at hand.
The involvement of teachers in school improvement processes, while similar in its
assumptions and process to curriculum development, finds its research and theory
base in other sources. General approaches to school improvement come from the
literature on change and innovation. For example, Loucks-Horsley and Hergert (1985)
describe seven action steps in a school improvement process that are based in research
on implementation of new practices in schools (Crandall & Loucks, 1983; Hall &
Loucks, 1978; Louis & Rosenblum, 1981). The research on effective schools
underpins other approaches to school improvement (Cohen, 1981). Finally, an
approach to school improvement through staff development developed by Wood and
his associates was derived from an analysis of effective staff development practices as
represented in the research and in reports from educational practitioners (Thompson,
1982; Wood, 1989). The result is a five-stage RPTIM model (Readiness, Planning,
Training, Implementation, and Maintenance) used widely in designing and
implementing staff development efforts (Wood, Thompson, & Russell, 1981). As a
result of involvement in such improvement efforts, schools (and the teachers within
them) may develop new curriculum, change reporting procedures to parents, enhance
communication within the faculty, and improve instruction, among many other topics.
11
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
Phases of activity.
This model begins with die identification of a problem or need by an individual, a
group of teachers (e.g., a grade-level team or a secondary department), a school
faculty, or a district administrator. The need may be identified informally through
discussion or a growing sense of dissatisfaction, through a more formal process such
as brainstorming or the use of a standardized instrument (such as a school
improvement survey or needs assessment), or through examination of student
achievement or program evaluation data.
After a need has been identified, a response is formulated. This response may be
determined informally or formally. In some cases, the necessary action may become
immediately evident (e.g., the need for new lunchroom rules). At other times, teachers
may need to brainstorm or search out alternatives, weigh them against a set of
predetermined criteria, develop an action plan, and determine evaluation procedures.
This process may take several sessions to complete and require consultation with a
larger group (e.g., the schoolwide staff development committee may receive feedback
on the tentative plan from the entire faculty).
Typically, it becomes evident during this phase that specific knowledge or skills may
be required to implement the plan. For instance, the faculty may decide that it wants
to study several discipline systems before implementing the new lunchroom
management system. The improvement of students’ higher-order thinking may
involve the selection of new textbooks, requiring that committee members better
understand which features to look for in a textbook to support this goal. The
development or selection of a new elementary science curriculum may require study
of the latest research on science teaching and the examination of other curricula.
At this point the plan is implemented or the product developed. This process may take
several days, several months, or several years. As a final step, the success of the
program is assessed. If teachers are not satisfied with the results, they may return to
an earlier phase (e.g., acquisition of knowledge or skills) and repeat the process.
Illustrations and outcomes.
While teachers have long been involved in curriculum slum development, little
research on the impact of these experiences on their professional development has
been conducted. The research that has been done has assessed the impact of such
involvement on areas other than professional development (for example, job
satisfaction, costs, and commitment to the organization) (Kimpston & Rogers, 1987).
Similarly, although the engagement of teachers in school improvement processes has
increased in the last few years, little research has been conducted on the effects of that
involvement on their professional development. There are, however numerous
examples that illustrate the various ways schools and districts have enhanced teacher
growth by engaging them in the development/improvement process.
In the past few years, many state education agencies have supported implementation
of state-initiated reforms through the encouragement (and sometimes mandating) of
school improvement processes. For example, the Franklin County (Ohio) Department
of Education used a staff development process to assist five school districts to meet
12
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
mandated state goals (Scholl & McQueen, 1985). Teachers and administrators from
the districts learned about the state requirements and developed goals and planning
strategies for their districts. A major product of the program was a manual that
included a synthesis of information and worksheets that could be used to guide small
group activities in the five districts.
School districts have also initiated programs which involved teachers in improvement
planning. In the Hammond (Indiana) Public Schools, decision making is school based
(Casner-Lotto, 1988). School improvement committees (each composed of 15-20
members, including teachers, administrators, parents, students, and community
members) received training in consensus building, brainstorming, creative problem
solving, and group dynamics. After this training, each committee develops a "vision
of excellence" for its school. As a result, schools have initiated projects in
individualized learning, peer evaluation, cross-grade-level reading, and teacher
coaching/mentoring.
Sparks, Nowakowski. Hall, Alec, and Imrick (1985) reported on two elementary
school improvement projects that led to large gains on state reading tests. The first
school’s staff decided to review the reading curriculum and to investigate alternative
instructional approaches. Teachers task-analyzed the six lowest-scoring objectives on
the state test, studied effective instructional techniques, and participated in selfselected professional growth activities. In I2 years the number of students who scored
above the average rose from 72 percent to 100 percent. In the second school, teachers
adopted a new reading series, revised the kindergarten program, and created a booklet
that included practice test items and effective instructional practices for improving
student achievement. The percentage of students achieving the reading objectives
increased almost 20 percent in three years.
The Jefferson County (Colorado) School District has long involved teachers in
curriculum development and adaptation (Jefferson County Public Schools, 1974). A
cyclical process of needs assessment curriculum objective statements, curriculum
writing, pilot testing and evaluation and district-wide implementation has been used
on a regular basis in the major intent areas. Teachers involved in writing and pilot test
teams hone their skills as curriculum planners and developers and as masters of the
new techniques that are incorporated into the curriculum (these have included such
strategies as cooperative learning and individualized instruction). They also often take
on the role of teacher trainers for the district-wide implementation that follows pilot
and field tests (Loucks & Pratt, 1979).
E.J. Wilson High School in Spencerport (New York) is one of many across the
country that has implemented elements of effective schools through a systematic
school improvement process. Teachers in the school participate with building
administrators on a Building Planning - committee which spearheads the achievement
of "ideal practices" within the school through a seven-step process that engages the
entire faculty in assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation. As a result,
the school climate and student achievement have improved, as have the knowledge,
skills, and attitudes of the teachers involved. This school’s outcome is representative
of other schools that have implemented similar improvement processes (Kyle, 1985).
13
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
These state, school, and district-level efforts illustrate the wide variety of ways in
which this model of staff development is being used. While the research and
evaluation evidence regarding the impact of these processes on teacher knowledge
and skills is not substantial, research does support many of the ingredients contained
within these processes. These include commitment to the process by school and
building administrators, which includes giving authority and resources to the team to
pursue and then implement its agenda; development of knowledge and skills on the
part of the teacher participants; adequate, quality time to meet, reflect, and develop;
adequate resources to purchase materials, visit other sites, hire consultants to
contribute to informed decision making; leadership that provides a vision, direction
and guidance, but allows for significant decision making on the part of the teacher
participants; and integration of the effort into other improvement efforts and into other
structures that influence teaching and learning in the school (Loucks-Horsley et al.,
1987). When these factors are present, a limited amount of research data and a great
deal of self-report data indicate clearly that the desired outcomes of staff development
are achieved.
4. Training.
In the minds of many educators, training is synonymous with staff development. Most
teachers are accustomed to attending workshop-type sessions in which the presenter is
the expert who establishes the content and flow of activities. Typically the training
session is conducted with a clear set of objectives or learner outcomes. These
outcomes frequently include awareness or knowledge (e.g., participants will be able to
explain the five principles of cooperative learning) and skill development (e.g.,
participants will demonstrate the appropriate use of open-ended questions in a class
discussion). Joyce and Showers (1988) cite changes in attitudes, transfer of training,
and "executive control" (the appropriate and consistent use of new strategies in the
classroom) as additional outcomes. It is the trainer’s role to select activities (e.g.,
lecture, demonstration, role-playing, simulation, micro-teaching) that will aid teachers
in achieving the desired outcomes.
Whatever the anticipated outcomes, the improvement of teachers’ thinking is an
important goal. According to Showers, Joyce, and Bennett (1987):
. . . the purpose of providing training in any practice is not simply to
generate the external visible teaching "moves" that bring that practice
to bear in the instructional setting but to generate the conditions that
enable the practice to be selected and used appropriately and
integratively. . . . a major, perhaps the major, dimension of teaching
skill is cognitive in nature. (pp. 85-86)
Underlying assumptions.
An assumption that undergirds the training model of staff development is that there
are behaviors and techniques that are worthy of replication by teachers in the
classroom. This assumption can certainly be supported by the large number of
14
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
research-based effective teaching practices that have been identified and verified in
the past 20 years (Sparks. 1983).
Another assumption underlying this model is that teachers can change their behaviors
and learn to replicate behaviors in their classroom that were not previously in their
repertoire. As Joyce and Showers (1983) point out, training is a powerful process for
enhancing knowledge and skills. "It is plain from the research on training," they say,
"that teachers can be wonderful learners. They can master just about any kind of
teaching strategy or implement almost any technique as long as adequate training is
provided" (p. 2).
Because of a high participant-to-trainer ratio, training is usually a cost-efficient means
for teachers to acquire knowledge or skills. Many instructional skills require that
teachers view a demonstration of their use to fully understand their implementation.
Likewise, certain instructional techniques require for their classroom implementation
that teachers have an opportunity to practice them with feedback from a skilled
observer. Training may be the most efficient means for large numbers of teachers to
view these demonstrations and to receive feedback as they practice.
Theoretical and research underpinnings.
The theoretical and research underpinnings for the training model come from several
sources, but the most recent and intensive research has been conducted by Joyce and
Showers (1988). They have determined that, depending upon the desired outcomes,
training might include exploration of theory, demonstration or modeling of a skill,
practice of the skill under simulated conditions, feedback about performance, and
coaching in the workplace. Their research indicates that this combination of
components is necessary if the outcome is skill development.
In addition to those components identified by Joyce and Showers, Sparks (1983) cites
the importance of discussion and peer observation as training activities. She notes that
discussion is useful both when new concepts or techniques are presented and as a
problem-solving tool after teachers have had an opportunity to try out new strategies
in their classrooms. Training sessions that are spaced 1 or more weeks apart so that
content can be "chunked" for improved comprehension and so that teachers have
opportunities for classroom practice and peer coaching are shown to be more effective
than "one-shot" training (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1987; Sparks. 1983).
Sparks (1983), Wu (1987), and Wood and Kleine (1987) point out the value of
teachers as trainers of their peers. Sparks indicates that teachers may learn as much
from their peers as from "expert" trainers. She also argues that school districts can
afford the type of small-group training that she recommends when peers are used
rather than more expensive external consultants. In reviewing the research, Wood and
Kleine found that teachers preferred their peers as trainers. Wu’s review of the
research also confirmed this, finding that when their peers are trainers, teachers feel
more comfortable exchanging ideas, play a more active role in workshops, and report
that they receive more practical suggestions. There is, however, evidence that
indicates that expert trainers who have the critical qualities teachers value in their
peers (e.g., a clear understanding of how a new practice works with real students in
real classroom settings) can also be highly effective (Crandall, 1983).
15
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
Phases of activities.
According to Joyce and Showers (1988), "Someone has to decide what will be the
substance of the training, who will provide training, when and where the training will
be held and for what duration" (p. 69). While training content, objectives, and
schedules are often determined by administrators or by the trainer, Wood, McQuarrie,
and Thompson’s (1982) research-based model advocates involving participants in
planning training programs. Participants serve on planning teams which assess needs
(using appropriate sources of data), explore various research-based approaches, select
content, determine goals and objectives, schedule training sessions, and monitor
implementation of the program.
Joyce and Showers (1988) point out that there are specific "learning-to-learn’’
attitudes and skills that teachers possess of can develop that aid the training process.
They cite persistence, acknowledgment of the transfer problem (the need for
considerable practice of new skills in the classroom), teaching new behaviors to
students, meeting the cognitive demands of innovations (developing a "deep
understanding" of new practices), the productive use of peers, and flexibility. The
authors list several conditions of training sessions that foster these aptitudes and
behaviors: adequate training, opportunities for collegial problem solving, norms that
encourage experimentation, and organizational structures that support learning.
Sparks’ (1983) review of staff development research suggests that a diagnostic
process (such as detailed profiles of teaching behaviors based upon classroom
observations) may be an important first step in the training process.
After training, in-classroom assistance in the form of peer observation and coaching is
critical to the transfer of more complex teaching skills (Joyce & Showers, 1988). The
process of data gathering and analysis that accompanies most forms of peer
observation is valuable to the observer as well as the observed teacher (Brandt, 1987;
Sparks, 1986). A more thorough discussion of this topic can be found in the
observation/assessment model described earlier in this article.
Illustrations and outcomes.
The power of training to alter teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and instructional skills
is well established. Its impact on teachers, however, depends upon its objectives and
the quality of the training program. Joyce and Showers (1988) have determined that
when all training components are present (theory, demonstration, practice, feedback,
and coaching), an effect size of 2.71 exists for knowledge-level objectives, 1.25 for
skill- level objectives, and 1.68 for transfer of training to the classroom. (The effect
size describes the magnitude of gains from any given change in educational practice;
the higher the effect size, the greater the magnitude of gain. For instance, an effect
size of 1.0 indicates that the average teacher in the experimental group outperformed
84% of the teachers in the control group.) "We have concluded from these data,"
Joyce and Showers(1988) report, "that teachers can acquire new knowledge and skill
and use it in their instructional practice when provided with adequate opportunities to
learn" (p. 72). Coaching and peer observation research cited earlier in the
observation/assessment model also supports the efficacy of training.
16
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
Wade (1985) found in her meta-analysis of inservice teacher education research that
training affected participants’ learning by an effect size of 90 and their behavior by
60. An effect size of .37 was found for the impact of teacher training on student
behavior. Wade also concluded that training groups composed of both elementary and
secondary teachers achieved higher effect sizes than did those enrolling only
elementary or only secondary teachers.
Gage (1984) traces the evolution of research on teaching from observational and
descriptive studies to correlational studies to nine experiments that were designed to
alter instructional practices. "The main conclusion of this body of research," Gage
wrote, "is that, in eight out of the nine cases, inservice education was fairly effective –
not with all teachers and not with all teaching practices but effective enough to change
teachers and improve student achievement, or attitudes, or behavior" (p. 92).
Numerous specific illustrations of training programs are available that have
demonstrated impact on teacher behavior and/or student learning. For instance,
studies indicate that teachers who have been taught cooperative learning strategies for
their classrooms have students who have higher achievement, display higher
reasoning and greater critical thinking, have more positive attitudes toward the subject
area, and like their fellow students better (Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, & Roy, 1984).
Good and Grouws (1987) describe a mathematics staff development program for
elementary teachers. In this I0-session program teachers learned more about
mathematics content and about instructional and management issues. As a result of
the training, the researchers found changes in teachers’ classroom practice and
improved mathematics presentations. Student mathematics performance was also
improved.
Kerman (1979) reports a three-year study in which several hundred K-12 teachers
were trained to improve their interactions with low achieving students. The fivesession training program included peer observation in the month interval between
each session. The researchers found that low achieving students in experimental class
made significant academic gains over their counterparts in control groups.
Rauth (1986) describes an American Federation of Teachers training program that
brought research on teaching to its members. Teacher Research Linkers (TRLs) first
determine which aspects of the research will be most valuable in their teaching.
Between sessions they carry out implementation plans in their own classrooms. TRLs
are then taught how to effectively share this research with their colleagues. A study of
this program indicated that teachers made significant changes in their practice and
that, in addition, their morale and collegiality increased dramatically.
Robbins and Wolfe (1987) discuss a four-year staff development project designed to
increase elementary students’ engaged time and achievement. Evaluation of the
training program documented steady improvement for three years in teachers’
instructional skills, student engaged time, and student achievement in reading and
math. While scores in all these areas dropped in the project’s fourth and final year,
Robbins and Wolfe argue that this decline was due to insufficient coaching and peer
observation during that year.
17
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
As the preceding discussion indicates, there is a much more substantial research
literature on training than on the models presented earlier. Under the appropriate
conditions, training has the potential for significantly changing teachers’ beliefs,
knowledge, behavior, and the performance of their students.
5. Inquiry
Teacher inquiry can take different forms. A high school teacher wonders if an
alteration in her lesson plan from her first period class will produce improved student
understanding in second period. A brief written quiz given at the end of the class
indicates that it did. A group of teachers gathers weekly after school for an hour or
two at the teacher center to examine the research on ability grouping. Their findings
will be shared with the district’s curriculum council. Several elementary teachers
study basic classroom research techniques, formulate research questions, gather and
analyze data, and use their findings to improve instruction in their classrooms.
Teacher inquiry may be a solitary activity, be done in small groups, or be conducted
by a school faculty. Its process may be formal or informal. It may occur in a
classroom, at a teacher center, or result from a university class. In this section teacher
inquiry is explored as a staff development model.
One of the important tenets of the inquiry approach is that research is an important
activity in which teachers should be engaged, although they rarely participate in it
other than as "subjects."
Underlying assumptions.
Inquiry reflects a basic belief in teachers’ ability to formulate valid questions about
their own practice and to pursue objective answers to those questions. Loucks-Horsley
and her associates (1987) list three assumptions about a teacher inquiry approach to
staff development:
• Teachers are intelligent, inquiring individuals with legitimate
expertise and important experience.
• Teachers are inclined to search for data to answer pressing questions
and to reflect on the data to formulate solutions.
• Teachers will develop new understandings as they formulate their
own questions and collect their own data to answer them.
The overarching assumption of the model is that:
"the most effective avenue for professional development is cooperative
study by teachers themselves into problems and issues arising from
their attempts to make their practice consistent with their educational
values. . . . [The approach] aims to give greater control over what is to
count as valid educational knowledge to teachers.'' (Ingvarson. I987,
pp. 15.17)
18
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
Theoretical and research underpinnings.
The call for inquiry-oriented teachers is not new. Dewey (1933) wrote of the need for
teachers to take "reflective action." Zeichner (1983) cites more than 30 years of
advocacy for "teachers as action researchers," "teacher scholars," "teacher
innovators," "self-monitoring teachers," and "teachers as participant observers."
More recently, various forms of inquiry have been advocated by a number of theorists
and researchers. Tikunoff and Ward’s (1983) model of interactive research and
development promotes teacher inquiry into the questions they are asking through
close work with researchers (who help with methodology) and staff developers (who
help them create ways of sharing their results with others). Lieberman (1986) reports
on a similar process in which teachers serving on collaborative teams pursued answers
to schoolwide rather than classroom problems. Watts (1985) discusses the role of
collaborative research, classroom action research, and teacher support groups in
encouraging teacher inquiry. Simmons and Sparks (1985) describe the use of action
research to help teachers better relate research on teaching to their unique classrooms.
Glickman (1986) advocates action research in the form of quality circles, problemsolving groups, and school improvement projects as means to develop teacher
thought. Cross (1987) proposes classroom research to help teachers evaluate the
effectiveness of their own teaching. Glatthorn (1987) discusses action research by
teams of teachers as a peer-centered option for promoting professional growth.
Loucks-Horsley and her colleagues (1987) discuss teachers-as-researchers as a form
of teacher development that helps narrow the gap between research and practice.
Sparks and Simmons (1989) propose inquiry-oriented staff development as a means to
enhance teachers’ decision-making abilities.
Gable and Rogers (1987) "take the terror out of research" by describing ways in
which it can be used as a staff development tool. They discuss both qualitative and
quantitative methodology, providing specific strategies that teachers can use in their
classrooms. They conclude by saying " . . the desire to and ability to do research is an
essential attribute of the professional teacher of the '80s" (p. 695).
Phases of activity.
While the inquiry model of staff development can take many forms, these forms have
a number of elements in common. First, individuals or a group of teachers identify a
problem of interest. Next, they explore ways of collecting data that may range from
examining existing theoretical and research literature to gathering original classroom
or school data. These data are then analyzed and interpreted by an individual or the
group. Finally, changes are made, and new data are gathered and analyzed to
determine the effects of the intervention.
This process can be adapted to the unique needs of a particular approach to inquiry.
For instance, Hovda and Kyle (1984) provide a 10-step process for action research
that progresses from identifying interested participants, through sharing several study
ideas, to discussing findings, to considering having the study published or presented.
19
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
Glatthorn (1987) describes a four-step process for action research. Collaborative
research teams (a) identify a problem, (b) decide upon specific research questions to
be investigated and methodology to be used, (c) carry out the research design, and (d)
use the research to design an intervention to be implemented in the school.
Watts (1985) describes "reflective conversations" in which teachers carefully observe
and thoughtfully consider a particular child or practice. Using a standard procedure,
the group shares observations, reviews previous records and information, summarizes
their findings, and makes recommendations. As a final step, the group reviews the
process to assess how well it went, looks for gaps, and identifies ideas to repeat in
future conversations.
Organizational support and/or technical assistance may be required throughout the
phases of an inquiry activity. Organizational support may take the form of structures
such as teacher centers or study groups, or of resources such as released time or
materials. Technical assistance may involve training in research methodologies, datagathering techniques, and other processes that aid teachers in making sense of their
experiences.
Illustrations and outcomes.
The forms inquiry as a staff development model may take are limited only by the
imagination. Simmons and Sparks (1985) describe a "Master of Arts in Classroom
Teaching" degree designed to help teachers meet their individually identified
improvement goals. Teachers in this program learn about educational research,
identify and analyze classroom problems, pursue topics of professional interest, and
improve their overall teaching ability. The authors report evidence of change in
participant knowledge (e.g., concerning effective teaching-learning), thinking (e.g.,
enhanced problem-solving skills, increased cognitive complexity), and patterns of
communication and collegiality.
Watts (1985) presents a number of ways in which teachers act as researchers. She
discussed collaborative research in teacher centers funded by the Teachers’ Center
Exchange (then located at the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and
Development) that was conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Fourteen projects
were funded in which teachers collaborated with researchers on topics of interest to
the individual teachers’ center. Watts also described ethnographic studies of
classrooms conducted collaboratively by teachers and researchers. In addition, she
provided examples of classroom action research and teachers’ study groups as forms
of inquiry. Watts concluded that these three approaches share several outcomes. First,
as a result of learning more about research, teachers make more informed decisions
about when and how to apply the research findings of others. Second, teachers
experience more supportive and collegial relationships. And third, teaching improves
as teachers learn more about it by becoming better able to look beyond the immediate,
the individual, and the concrete.
The effects of the teacher inquiry model of staff development may reach beyond the
classroom to the school. An example of schoolwide impact comes from the report of a
high school team convened to reflect on a lack of communication and support
between teachers and administrators (Lie- Berman & Miller, 1984).
20
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
Note that there is a substantial overlap between this kind of "school-based" inquiry
and some of the school improvement processes discussed earlier in the model
described as involvement in a development/ improvement process.
Organizational Context
Teacher development in school districts does not take place in a vacuum. Its success
is influenced in many ways by the district’s organizational context (McLaughlin &
Marsh, 1978; Sparks, 1983). Key organizational factors include school and district
climate, leadership attitudes and behaviors, district policies and systems, and the
involvement of participants.
While staff development fosters the professional growth of individuals, organizational
development addresses the organization’s responsibility to define and meet changing
self improvement goals (Dillon-Peterson,1981). Consequently, effective organizations
have the capacity to continually renew themselves and solve problems. Within this
context, individuals can grow.
In earlier sections of this article, five models of staff development were discussed that
have solid foundations in research and/or practice, and are being used in increasingly
robust forms throughout the country today. While each model requires somewhat
different organizational supports to make it successful, it is also true that research
points to a common set of attributes of the organizational context without which staff
development can have only limited success (Loucks-Horsley et al.,1987). In
organizations where staff development is most successful:
• Staff members have a common, coherent set of goals and objectives
that they have helped formulate, reflecting high expectations of
themselves and their students.
• Administrators exercise strong leadership by promoting a "norm of
collegiality, " minimizing status differences between themselves and
their staff members, promoting informal communication, and reducing
their own need to use formal controls to achieve coordination.
• Administrators and teachers place a high priority on staff
development and continuous improvement.
• Administrators and teachers make use of a variety of formal and
informal processes for monitoring progress toward goals, using them to
identify obstacles to such progress and ways of overcoming these
obstacles, rather than using them to make summary judgments
regarding the "competence" of particular staff members (Conley &
Bacharach, 1987).
• Knowledge, expertise, and resources, including time, are drawn on
appropriately, yet liberally, to initiate and support the pursuit of staff
development goals.
21
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
This section briefly highlights the research that supports these organizational
attributes.
Organizational Climate
Little (1982) found that effective schools are characterized by norms of collegiality
and experimentation. Simply put, teachers are more likely to persist in using new
behaviors when they feel the support of colleagues and when they believe that
professional risk taking (and its occasional failures) are encouraged. Fullan (1982)
reports that the degree of change is strongly related to the extent to which teachers
interact with each other and provide technical help to one another. "Teachers need to
participate in skill-training workshops," Fullan writes, "but they also need to have
one-to-one and group opportunities to receive and give help, and more simply to
converse about the meaning of change" (p. 121).
Joyce and Showers (1983) point out that "in a loose and disorganized social climate
without clear goals, reticent teachers may actually subvert elements of the training
process not only for themselves but also for others" (p 31). While teacher
commitment is desirable, it need not necessarily be present initially for the program to
be successful. Miles (1983) found that teacher/administrator harmony was critical to
the success of improvement efforts, but that it could develop over the course of an
improvement effort. Initially, working relationships between teachers and
administrators had to be clear and supportive enough so that most participants could
"suspend disbelief," believing that the demands of change would be dealt with
together (Crandall, 1983). In their study of school improvement efforts that relied
heavily on staff development for their success, both Miles and Crandall found that in
projects where a mandated strategy caused some initial disharmony between teachers
and administrators, the climate changed as the new program’s positive impact on
students became clear. When a new program was selected carefully and teachers
received good training and support, most who were initially skeptical soon agreed
with and were committed to the effort. Showers, Joyce, and Bennett (1987) support
the position that, at least initially, teachers’ ability to use a new practice in a
competent way may be more important than commitment.
Few would disagree with the importance of a school and district climate that
encourages experimentation and supports teachers to take risks, i.e, establishes
readiness for change (Wood, Thompson, & Russell, 1981). Yet a supportive context
consists of more than "good feelings." The quality of the recommended practices is
also critical. Research conducted by Guskey (1986) and Loucks and Zacchei (1983)
indicates that the new practices developed or chosen by or for teachers need to be
effective ones – effective by virtue of evaluation results offered by the developer or
by careful testing by the teachers who have developed them. These researchers found
that only when teachers see that a new program or practice enhances the learning of
their students will their beliefs and attitudes change in a significant way.
Leadership and Support
According to the Rand Change Agent Study (McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978) active
support by principals and district administrators is critical to the success of any
change effort. According to McLaughlin and Marsh (1978):
22
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
The Rand research sets the role of the principal as instructional leader in the context
of strengthening the school improvement process through team building and problem
solving in a "project-like" context. It suggests that principals need to give clear
messages that teachers may take responsibility for their own professional growth. (p.
92)
Stallings and Mohlman (1981) determined that teachers improved most in staff
development programs where the principal supported them and was clear and
consistent in communicating school policies. Likewise, Fielding and Schalock (1985)
report a study in which principals’ involvement in teachers’ staff development
produced longer-term changes than when principals were not involved.
In their discussion of factors that affect the application of innovations, Loucks and
Zacchei (1983) wrote:
". . . administrators in successful improvement sites take their
leadership roles seriously and provide the direction needed to engage
teachers in the new practices" (p. 30).
According to Huberman (1983), teachers’ successful use of new skills often occurs
when administrators exert strong and continuous pressure for implementation. He
argues that: ". . . administrators, both at the central office and building levels, have to
go to center stage and stay there if school improvement efforts are to succeed" (p. 27).
While administrator presence is important, administrators must also act as gatekeepers of change so that "innovation overload" can be avoided (Anderson & Odden,
1986).
While much research points to administrators as being key leaders in staff
development and change, it is also true that others can take on leadership and support
roles – and may in fact be better placed to do so. Research on school improvement
indicates that a team approach can help orchestrate leadership and support "functions"
which can be shared by administrators (building and district level), district
coordinators or staff developers, teachers, and external trainers and consultants
(Loucks-Horsley & Hergert. 1985). For example, Cox (1983) reports that while
principals seem to play an important role in clarifying expectations and goals and
stabilizing the school organization, central office coordinators, who often know more
about a specific practice, can effectively coach teachers in their attempts to change
their classroom behavior. Coordinated leadership can also help avoid situations such
as a school’s textbooks and curriculum nor matching the instructional models teachers
are being taught to use (Fielding & Schalock, 1985).
District Policies and Systems
Staff development activities occur within the context of a district’s staff development
program. According to Ellis (1988), a comprehensive staff development program
includes a philosophy, goals, allocation of resources, and coordination. The
philosophy spells out beliefs that guide the program. District, school, and individual
goals (and their accompanying action plans) provide direction to staff development
efforts. Resources need to be allocated at the district, school, and individual levels so
that these goals have a reasonable chance of being achieved. Staff development
23
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
programs need to be coordinated by individuals who have an assigned responsibility
for this area. Ellis also supports the use of a district-level staff development
committee to aid in coordination of programs.
The selection, incorporation, or combination of the models of staff development
described in this article are the responsibility of the district’s staff development
structure. Decisions about their use need to match the intended outcomes if they are to
be effective (Levine & Broude, 1989), but these decisions are also influenced by state
and/or community initiatives aimed at the improvement of schools and/or teaching
(Anderson & Odden, 1986).
Participant Involvement
Research clearly indicates that involving participants in key decisions about staff
development is necessary for a program to have its greatest impact. According to
Lieberman and Miller (1986), a supportive context for staff development requires
both a "top-down" and "bottom-up" approach.
The top-down component sets a general direction for the district or school and
communicates expectations regarding performance. The bottom-up processes involve
teachers in establishing goals and designing appropriate staff development activities.
The establishment of common goals is important to the success of staff development
efforts (Ward & Tikunoff, 1981). Odden and Anderson’s (1986) research indicates
that a clearly defined process of data collection, shared diagnosis, and identification of
solutions to problems must be employed during the planning phase. Collaboration,
from initial planning through implementation and institutionalization, is a key process
in determining these goals and in influencing lasting change (Lambert, 1984;
McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978; Wood, Thompson, & Russell, 1981).
Lortie (1986) argues that when teachers perceive that they can participate in important
school-level decisions, the relationship between the extra efforts required by school
improvement and the benefits of these efforts becomes clearer. Following this
argument, he recommends that schools be given relatively little detailed supervision,
but be monitored instead for results based on explicit criteria.
Others report that, when teachers cannot be involved in initial decisions regarding
staff development (e.g., when it is mandated by state legislation or when it supports
the use of district-wide curriculum), their involvement in decisions about the "hows"
and "whens" of implementation can be important to success. Furthermore, teachers’
involvement in developing curriculum and as trainers for staff development programs
can contribute in important ways to the success of an effort (Loucks & Pratt, 1979).
Odden and Anderson (1986) capture the reciprocal relationship between organization
and individual development in this discussion of their research:
When instructional strategies, which aim to improve the skills of
individuals, were successful, they had significant effects on schools as
organizations. When school strategies, which aim to improve schools
24
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
as organizations, were successful, they had significant impacts on
individuals. (p. 585)
Staff development both influences and is influenced by the organizational context in
which it takes place. The impact of the staff development models that have been
discussed depends not only upon their individual or blended use, but upon the features
of the organization in which they are used.
The importance of paying attention to the context of staff development is underscored
by Fullan (1982). He responds to educators who say that they cannot provide the
elements required to support change (e.g., supportive principals, a two- or three-year
time period for implementation):
Well don’t expect much implementation to occur . . . I say this not
because I am a cynic but because it is wrong to let hopes blind us to the
actual obstacles to change. If these obstacles are ignored, the
experience with implementation can be harmful to the adults and
children directly involved – more harmful than if nothing had been
done. (p.103)
Conclusion
Staff development is a relatively young "science" within education. In many ways the
current knowledge base in staff development is similar to what was known about
teaching in the early 1970s. During the 1970s and early 1980s research on teaching
advanced from descriptive to correlational to experimental (Gage, 1984). With the
exception of research on training, much of the staff development literature is
theoretical and descriptive rather than experimental. The remaining two sections
describe what can be said with some confidence about the research base for the staff
development models and what remains to be learned.
What Can Be Said with Confidence
Staff development possesses a useful "craft knowledge" that guides the field. This
craft knowledge includes ways to organize, structure, and deliver staff development
programs (Caldwell, 1989). It has been disseminated in the past decade through
publications such as the Journal of Staff Development, Educational Leadership, and
Phi Delta Kappan, and through thousands of presentations at workshops and
conventions. As a result, in the past 20 years hundreds of staff development programs
have been established in urban, suburban, and rural school districts throughout the
United States and Canada. This craft knowledge serves another useful purpose: It can
guide researchers in asking far better questions than they could have asked a decade
ago.
Of the five models discussed in this article, the research on training is the most robust.
It is the most widely used form of staff development and the most thoroughly
investigated. As a result, it is possible to say with some confidence which training
elements are required to promote the attainment of specific outcomes. Likewise,
25
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
research on coaching has demonstrated the importance of in-classroom assistance to
teachers (by an "expert" or by a peer) for the transfer of training to the classroom.
The consensus of "expert opinion" is that school improvement is a systemic process
(Fullan, 1982). This ecological approach recognizes that changes in one part of a
system influence the other parts. Consequently, staff development both influences and
is influenced by the organizational context in which it takes place. The impact of the
staff development models that have been discussed depends not only upon their
individual or blended use, but upon the features of the organization in which they are
used.
While this appears to relate to the "art" of making staff development work (i.e, the
judgment with which one combines and juggles the various organizational
interactions), there is also much "science" that can be drawn from when it comes to
the organizational supports necessary for effective staff development. Study after
study confirms the necessity of:
• Schools possessing norms that support collegiality and
experimentation;
• District and building administrators who work with staff to clarify
goals and expectations, and actively commit to and support teachers’
efforts to change their practice;
• Efforts that are strongly focused on changes in curricular,
instructional, and classroom management practices with improved
student learning as the goal; and
• Adequate, appropriate staff development experiences with follow-up
assistance that continues long enough for new behaviors to be
incorporated into ongoing practice.
Interestingly enough, it appears that these factors apply to a wide variety of school
improvement and staff development efforts. While there are little hard research data
on some of the models discussed above (see next section), most if not all of these
factors will certainly persist as being important, regardless of what is learned about
other models.
What We Need to Learn More About
While the work of staff developers during the past decade has been grounded in
theory and research from various disciplines (e.g., adult learning, organization
development, training), the scientific base of their own practice (with the exception of
training and coaching) is quite thin. Unfortunately, the systematic study of some of
the models discussed earlier is difficult because their use is not widespread or because
they have been implemented only recently as part of comprehensive staff
development programs. Listed below are areas for further study.
1. We need research to determine the potency of the models described above
(with the exception of training). We need to learn which models are most effective
26
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
for which outcomes with which teachers. For instance, we might ask: How effective is
individually-guided staff development for knowledge level outcomes for self-directed
experienced teachers? Or: How effective is an inquiry approach in helping beginning
teachers learn their craft?
2. We need a better understanding of the impact on student learning of the four
non-training staff development models. Do non-training models alter teacher
knowledge or skills in a way that improves student learning?
3. We need to know more about the impact on teachers of blending the models
described above in a comprehensive staff development program. How are teachers’
attitudes, knowledge, and skills altered when they choose among and blend various
models as the means of reaching one or more "growth" goals? For instance, what
would be the result if a teacher blended individually-guided staff development (e.g..
reading research on tracking), observation/assessment (e.g., peer observation), and
training (e.g., in cooperative learning) as means to alter classroom practices that are
viewed as disadvantageous to a sub-group of students?
4. We need a systemic view of comprehensive staff development at the district
level. Most districts provide a variety of staff development opportunities to teachers.
Some purposely support individual, school-based, and district-based activities. We
need descriptive studies of what these programs look like, both from the overall,
coordination point of view, and from the individual teacher point of view. We need to
know: How are goals set and coordinated? How are resources allocated? How
equitable are opportunities for individual teachers? How do different contextual
factors (e.g., resources, state mandates) influence success?
5. We need to understand more about the relative costs of different staff
development models and combinations of the models. Moore and Hyde (1978,
1979, 1981) have conducted some useful analyses of how many school district
resources actually go for staff development purposes. But more micro-analyses would
be useful to understand the cost-effectiveness of relatively labor-intensive models
(e.g., coaching) versus those that rely only on the activity of a single teacher (e.g.,
individually-guided staff development).
6. Finally, we need to look at staff development as it contributes to teacher
professionalism and teacher leadership. Many believe that teacher professionalism
and leadership must characterize our education system in the future if that system is to
survive. Yet there are as many different definitions of the terms as there are ideas of
how to implement them. One role of staff development research is to help identify and
clarify the various meanings given to these concepts. We then need descriptive studies
of staff development’s contributions to these efforts, with special attention to how
these efforts influence the conduct of staff development.
It is possible that future research may contradict current craft knowledge (this, for
example, has occurred with the learning that attitude change does not always have to
precede behavior change), or, as is likely, future research will support current
practice. Many questions about effective staff development remain unanswered. The
need is great for well-designed, long-term studies of school improvement efforts that
are based on staff development. The field of staff development seeks a solid base that
27
http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
moves beyond description and advocacy to a better understanding of those factors that
support and improve classroom practice.
Reference Notes
1. This article was adapted from "Models of Staff Development," in W. Robert
Houston (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York: Macmillan,
1990.
2. References and footnote annotations for this article are available upon request.
28